Monday, March 24, 2014

Why I don't Believe Todd Standing


Todd Standing is one of the most controversial people involved with bigfoot research. Famous for his "Sylvanic" research and videos, it comes at no surprise that he is considered controversial. The footage he has acquired is amazing in the realm of bigfoot. Clear, up-close shots of bigfoot peeking at the camera from behind boulders and tree limbs, it's the kind of footage no one else seems to be able to achieve. Of course to really view the footage you have to pay a fee, but I have no issue with that. I have been very clear in my opinion that I don't see anything wrong with people making money off what they love to do, with one exception. As long as the individual isn't intentionally defrauding people with fake evidence. While some individuals believe Todd Standing's videos and work 100% authentic and groundbreaking, I come from a different opinion. I reside on the side of the fence that many others have positioned themselves as well, where it is the overall belief that Todd's photos and videos are 100% fake. For the sake of this article, I am not going to go into personal beliefs about his claims or his research methods. I'm going to simply look at the two most famous captures on public record that Standing has submitted as authentic bigfoot imagery.

Todd Standing has been in the spotlight lately after appearing on and working with Les Stroud of "Survivorman" fame. When Todd Standing released the information that he would be part of the Survivorman bigfoot series, it was met with doubt, disbelief, and an overwhelming "why?" from the community. Not because Standing would have anything to do with it, but because no one could understand why someone like Les Stroud would align himself with someone so controversial as Todd Standing. In a recent interview conducted by Bill Brock, Stroud answers that question. 

You can find that video here.

One of the reasons Les mentions as to why he would work with Standing, is because he finds his videos amazing. He has reached the position that they are either the real deal, or they are fake. This 50/50 split is a good place to reach when it comes to bigfoot evidence, so I can understand and appreciate Stroud's argument. 

However, let's take a look at just the evidence. Take everything else surrounding Todd Standing's claims and discard it. Below are the images I will be discussing.

Standing Bigfoot A

Standing Bigfoot B


When talking about Todd Standing's work, these are the two most prominent pieces you will find. These images are amazing and clear. Specific details can be seen, and like Les Stroud said, there is no way these images could be a misidentified bear or other known animal. So what do you see in the above images?

The first thing that stands out to me is that these images are supposedly showing two different individuals of the same species in the same region, yet they virtually look nothing alike. Animals and humans both have individual appearances. I realize this. However, two individuals from the same species, while not identical, will still have the same basic features. These do not.

Subject A is lacking a forehead, while Subject B has a clear and obvious forehead.

Subject A has a prominent brow ridge, while Subject B has none.

Subject A has a hairline that comes down to the eyes, across the cheeks to the nose, and upwards to the bottom lip. Subject B is completely devoid of this same hair pattern.

Subject A has a distinctive nose bridge, while Subject B has a sloping indented nose with no apparent bridge.

Subject A's hair is course and more hair like. Subject B's hair is woolly and more fur like.

Subject A has no visible upper lip, while Subject B has a clear and distinctive upper lip. The same holds true for the bottom lips as well.

Subject A has a mottled, almost chimp-like skin tone and texture. Subject B's skin is smooth, uniform, and covered in what looks like fuzz or flocking.

Flocked Rabbit Figurine for Comparison
Based on these differences alone, I can not believe these are two individuals of the same exact species and region. The obvious and apparent differences are too numerous. 

That is why I do not believe Todd Standing.

79 comments:

  1. Male versus female

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mask vs. puppet.

      Delete
    2. Let me save everyone a whole lot of time... Goto this blog spot and see the truth about this scum bag Mrs Standing,
      www.thesasquatchvoice.blogspot.com
      Click on the April section about Toddster....
      It's absolutely incredible that a guy like Les Stroid could align himself with this steaming POS.

      Delete
    3. There is a big issue with your analysis.

      The picture of subject B is a manipulated photo, not the original.

      More than half of the face has been photoshopped, so of course it looks fake.

      The original image is half covered by tree branches.

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2014/04/todd-standings-bigfoot-photograph-could.html

      Delete
    4. Before the lower image was photoshopped by Alex Putney to remove branches and render a mirror image of what it might look like you could not see the forehead. So, comments about no brow bridge etc., dealing with the forehead are inconclusive. Even the nose bridge is covered so this article needs to be taken down and another more accurate one put up.

      Delete
    5. Although I DO BELIVIEVE bigfoot exists..I agree his videos are fake.. I feel he is doing this for publicity and to get funding to really get real future evidence..But we all know the story of the little boy who cried wolf too many times... I hope Jeff Meldrum or another true scholar will reap the benefits of proving the existence of this animal

      Delete
  2. I agree with the comment above. Sexual dimorphism is relatively common among primates of the same species. For the sake of argument, if these photos are authentic, we know nothing about the sex or age of the subjects. Both of these factors alone could have a significant impact on their physical traits.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How on earth can anyone think these are real? Has anyone seen the "movement" of these puppets? Check out subject A's eye "blink" (Google it). Good grief! If that's how slow they blink they'd be screwed.

    Fake fake FAKE.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When we look at the human race we have white, yellow, red, brown and black all are similar and all are differentat the same time.
    In Canada for example we have Black Bear that are black, brown, blond or yellow and red or cinnamon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where have you seen white, yellow, red or black people? Asians aren't red or yellow, and black people aren't actually black. Except maybe Wesley Snipes. Albino's are as close as I've seen to white people. These are stereo typically false.

      Delete
    2. Only an idiot would think he was talking literally.Moron

      Delete
  5. Terry, All these people dont have to believe in Todd Standing, It does not Matter, What Matters is that we Believe in Todd Standing.. Listen, I watched a Radeo program with Les Stroud on it, and if Todd Standing was such a hoaxer than he would not have staked his Reputation going on National TV with Todd Standing,NO WAY!!! Yes just like people can look different in the same area so can Sasquatch... We Believe in Todd Standing..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thiK yOu maY NEed to rEVIsit hOw to usE capITals anD lOwER cAse lETters. Also, how do you 'watch' a radeo(sic) program? *then

      Delete
  6. OMG. Standing was nothing and now he's "Strouded".... God godz people. Wake up. Those are not REAL bigfoots in the "photos."

    ReplyDelete
  7. TODD STANDING IS A HOAXER AND A LIAR!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now wait just one cotton pickin minute. I was under the impression that almost EVERYONE knows that Todd Standing is a hoaxer. His evidence is very obviously fake. Which must mean that Les Stroud is obeying corporate HQ to do a show on Bigfoot in order to make fun of the subject. Stroud working with Standing looks like an attempt to purposely discredit the field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you please be specific about why you think everyone knows he is a hoaxer?

      Delete
    2. By your rationale, the Patterson film is also a fake b/c that's what most people think it is. How about some hard evidence?

      Delete
    3. I'm pretty sure the Patterson's film is real.because when u look at it u can't fake muscle tone threw and ape suit but there is also no proof that it is fake its just a matter of opinion and besides there is a man went threw the film and is an expert on things like make up and costumes and after weeks of investigation he came down to the conclusion of being physicaly impossible to fake it was almost feet tall. You should look it up I believe its a document I haven't watched it in a while. Very interesting.

      Delete
    4. It may be that the Patterson film is real. My personal opinion is that it is. It has been dissected by experts in human physiology and primatologists and found to be "compelling", and possibly real. However, there is a man who claims to have been paid a sum ($1000 I think) to wear a suit and walk the creek bed. When one watches this guy walk, the match to the walk of the Patterson creature is uncanny.

      Standing is aggressive, he's out there, and he's unconventional. That sets him apart. In a field dominated by fame seekers (Matt Moneymaker for one in my opinion), it is no wonder to me that his videos and photos are instantly met with cries of "FAKE!!". For me, the jury is out. I echo the comment above referencing Stroud's reputation. At the moment, I lean towards "real". I don't mind admitting I was fooled if they turn out to be fake either.

      Delete
  9. Discredit the field? That's sounds kind of redundant to me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Appreciate your argument, but there are a few people within the bigfoot world that believe there are two distinct types of bigfoot, one more human like (subject A), and one more ape like (subject B). Some have even claimed there are 3 different types of bigfoot like creatures out there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Subject a is based on Todd standings own face, it may even be him in a suit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. very well put. noticed it myself.good eye sir.

      Delete
    2. I agree that Standing is the person in the makeup.It occurred to me immediately! no mistake,,, his sister made up his face. The rest is studio and photoshop. Could be his sister in the other one.

      Delete
  12. NOBODY has any proof of his having hoaxed these photos. Your critique is thin. You claim to be an expert on what a BF "should" look like. Why couldn't this be a male vs. female. Just as many differences as a male human vs. a female human.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the burden of proof rests on the Sasquatch enthusiasts. Because there is no proof of a fake does not mean it is real.

      Use a little common sense. Not to mention you have to wonder why this todd guy, who knows so much about them, has NEVER used game cameras, thermal imagining cams, etc to film his monsters. All he says is " some see for yourselves". He is Sasquatch guide, he makes money off this whole subject. Don't be so naive.

      Delete
  13. one looks like great special effects work, or possibly real,A, and one looks like bad museum taxidermy or a prop from muppet babies, B.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If anyone for a moment believe these pictures are real you my friends need mental help! Subject A looks more believable and real of what according to many eye witnesses claim Bigfoot looks like. Subject B looks like it can't even blink!!! It is just something they put together very badly not to mention it doesn't even have any eyebrows. Even cats and dogs have an eyebrow and bridge line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand what you think but subject B the female does blink as well there is lip peel in video I have, seen of it. I think we are all assuming many things when it comes to these pictures. For one these pictures subject A,B are not real pictures, they have been Photoshopped from the originals and does change how the creatures really look. Dont get me wrong they are great Photoshops but.... If you do a little research into known primates(the great apes) you will see that they dont look alike and as they age their appearance really changes. Look at (google images) chimpanzee , gorillas and the orangutan (specially orangutan) and see what I mean. As far as personal drscriptipn from eye witnesses I have heard many different descriptions of the creature(which there should be) from very hairy, color from grey,brown, black ect. Back to Todd standings images, its my understanding that the dark haired creature A is a young male and creature B is of a much older female. So in the great ape world this maybe why they look so different. here are two pictures of a young and old orangutan http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_W90V87w3sr8%2FTMf7rliXGSI%2FAAAAAAAAAEk%2FkeKwAtKZfoE%2Fs1600%2FOrangutan2_468x619.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftrue-wildlife.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F10%2Forang-utan.html&h=619&w=468&tbnid=VJWTpKUdwfyi0M%3A&zoom=1&docid=LMj2sNnxkXyT9M&ei=FLdCU8LcMKKyyAH_44GwAw&tbm=isch&ved=0CIoBEIQcMAs&iact=rc&dur=263&page=2&start=10&ndsp=14 and here is a older one http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-o65YLxRcEeQ%2FUPmCShniHRI%2FAAAAAAAABTI%2F0Fi3TsroK1A%2Fs1600%2FAA_Bornean%252Borangutan%252Bmale%252BCharlie%252BZD199428.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsavenaturesavehuman.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F01%2Fthe-bornean-orangutan.html&h=1067&w=1600&tbnid=OUjcJ-tLirOFlM%3A&zoom=1&docid=lZGFPUhDrar0RM&ei=FLdCU8LcMKKyyAH_44GwAw&tbm=isch&ved=0CJABEIQcMA0&iact=rc&dur=240&page=2&start=10&ndsp=14 you be the judge. I think they look a lot more fake then the figures in Todds images

      Delete
  15. Provide a body that has been tested and ran threw the ringer so to speak. Until then we have no true evidence. Do i believe they exist? Yes...but until we have a body this is all useless.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I see squatch face to face several times a week in Washington State. They look nothing like this. They live in the dirt. In bunkers and huts in the rain, mud, moss. They are nasty, not carefully groomed 'muppets'. OMG--anyone that even considers these to be real is freaking stupid as a doorknob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hold on!! You see sasqautch face to face several times a week. Huh!! Why aren't you getting video of them. And I don't want to hear "I don't own a camera or any crap like that you own a computer, you own a camera.. You must be sooo rich that money means nothing to you because the entire scientific world would pay Very handsomely for proof of a "Real Sasquatch" and that's just the science people then you have the rest of the world that would pay to see a real sasquatch. So are so rich you don't need that kind of money because not even Bill Gates is rich enough in his own mind or have you taken too much LSD in your past and its fried your brain and you think your seeing them

      Delete
  17. I like the OBVIOUS GLASS EYES in the 2nd picture. You'd have to be a total degenerate schmuck to believe ANYTHING that a fraudulent hoaxer like Todd Standing puts forward.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If Todd Standings footage is real,how come it conveniently doesn't show them walking? Seriously people,you believers are being intellectually dishonest with yourself. I know you wanna believe in Bigfoot, I do too. But stop falling for ridiculous evidence and bogus guys like Standing. For the guy on here who claims to come face to face with them on weekly basis in Washington. Your a lying idiot! Why would someone even claim something so silly? We all know your a liar! Get a life man.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The top picture looks like someone with hypertrichosis. There is a whole family in Mexico who carry the gene and it looks just like them. Also known as wolfman syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  20. picture b is clearly a Star Wars Ewok, picture A looks more like I would expect a Sasquatch to look, I still believe in the B-foot, having grown up in the Pacific Northwest you hear about them all the time and the Native Americans have stories about them going back hundreds of years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are incorrect dear sir or ma'am. Subject B cannot be an ewok. The lack of facial hair, eyes, and mouth makes this evident. Subject B is clearly a Neanderthal adorned with a Moncler fur. Probably acquired during a Rodeo Drive shopping excursion - Baracci or Boulmiche I'd venture to guess. Possibly Modernica over on Beverly.

      Delete
    2. Native Americans smoked dope too.

      Delete
  21. Subject A is real, subject B is also real but had just gone to the salon to get his hair coloured and Brazilian wax in the facial area before this photo was taken so they are the same species. Get real folks, I didn't know who Todd Standing was before Survivorman but if I had to bet money, I would bet on him being fake. If you saw this in your camera, wouldn't you run after it to get a better photo/action shot of it? BF may be real, but not in those pics. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's obviously fake.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I suspect Subject A has been put together using Z-brush, a number of 3d renders, and a program that specialises in realistic hair appropriately called "Sasquatch". It's extremely well done. Whether Standing created it himself or employed some 3D modelling expert somewhere to put it together, who knows? The perfect framing of the blurred leaves in the foreground on either side of the bigfoot's eyes, is another strong indication something isn't right. As a picture of Bigfoot, I love it! As for Subject B, it looks more organic but the eyes have a lifeless gaze to them - fixed with pupils exactly the same size in each eye. There is an absence of eyelids and where the hell are the tear ducts and the eyelashes???? As a living creature, I don't know how subject B would realistically function. Subject B looks like an Ewok from The Return of the Jedi.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Don't you think that Todd Standing knows that. The fact that they look so different is one reason why I believe it. Look at Jay Leno and Arsenio Hall!! Lol. If he was going to hoax, why wouldn't he show more?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Chewbacca and Wicket

    ReplyDelete
  26. How could anyone believe this cap?? For Godsakes how pathetic can you be? The video of the ridiculously looking female Bigfoot peaking at the camera is absolutely laughable! I mean come on,he only managed to get their heads on video?! Their heads don't turn,their mouths don't move,they make no noise! Do you really think this Todd Standing idiot would pass up getting rich by providing a Bigfoot to a news agency? But yet he's out there still looking for it after he's already supposedly found them! Just listen to him talk,he is clearly a bullshitter!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would bet that all these PEOPLE are God-freeks that dont think SQUATCHS are real!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
  27. Has anyone noticed that almost all people involved with Bigfoot research are nut jobs? I use to think Jeff Meldrum gave some credibility to the Bigfoot research. But now it's clear he's in it for the money and notoriety. He's in EVERY Bigfoot Documentary. It cracks me up how people like Matt Moneymaker talk about tracking them for 25 years. But yet they have zero evidence Bigfoot exists. They claim to be experts on Bigfoot when they haven't even found one. I don't even believe that most of them even believe it anymore. They had an episode where they were in Kansas looking for Bigfoot. KANSAS that's funny. These people are gonna ride this Bigfoot Train for all its worth while they can. Until most people lose interest,which I think will be happening soon. Even if Bigfoot exists,it would only be in the most remote back country of Mountainous States. Rocky Mountains that is,not hills in Illinois or anywhere east of Colorado. But most likely,they don't even exist anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree completely. Growing up the idea of Bigfoot was exciting and what evidence that was presented was so rare that you almost had to believe there could be more but then the "BF Researchers" came into town making claims and all sorts of intolerable videos about tracking Bigfoot most were part 1 of.... then nothing ever followed. These "researchers" look more like every person ever interviewed after a tornado. Sadly the ridiculous information being put out has drove me from someone excited about the subject to a person who just keeps skipping over any of these YouTube documentaries. The field would be a lot more credible if only PhD level scientists or actual experts in a field presented this information and not a guy with a ZZ Top Beard, Truck Driver Gut and Hillbilly accent tried to present a case . Look at what we have the men from Mountain Monsters and Finding Bigfoot. Wow, those are programs that are just hard to watch and those are on mainstream television!

      Delete
  28. AnonymousApril 10, 2014 at 8:00 AM - Meldrum is in quite a few documentaries, etc., because of his impeccable reputation and knowledge. You would rather they just interview unknowns who have no applicable background? You think these films make lots of money and Meldrum is rolling in $$$? If you think BF is only in the PNW, you would be incorrect. You think Kansas is just flat and scrubby? Nope. Sightings occur nationwide. Where do you live? A suburb? A city? Do you do much outdoors? You are familiar with the plants, animals, and terrain of the entire US? Didn't think so. You're just flapping your gums on a forum. Get outside, get some sun.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ok Jackass! First off,i live in a rural area in Missouri,im always outside! I've lived in Colorado and have driven through Kansas many times. I'm well aware of the terrain. If your suggesting that Bigfoot inhabits Kansas or Missouri,your an idiot! There's not enough vast expansions of woods to conceal Bigfoot you fool! Hunters,Farmers,atv riders,etc are all over the woods,like myself. Yes there is money in Bigfoot,otherwise there wouldn't be a show called finding Bigfoot! Your a naive joke who is very gullible!

    ReplyDelete
  30. ewoks are REAL. I saw footage.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Stroud mentioned he heard something crashing through the trees, and said it wasn't any sort of north American animal, yet, I've heard/watched bull elk running from me through the trees, sometimes they're ghosts, sometimes they crash through like a Boeing 747 hitting the ground and breaking trees down. Seriously elk can be extremely loud.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's convenient in the show how only they claim to hear noises yet the TV viewers hear zilch. We have to assume it happened. No proof at all

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most video cams have extremely directional microphones built in. Mine has a foam "muffler" over the business end to cut down random wind noises. If the camera is pointed one way, it takes an awfully loud noise to be heard from behind, or beside the mic. Just sayin'....

      Delete
  33. Todd Standing ... in a deep pile of his own bullshit

    ReplyDelete
  34. I got the "Bigfoot-bug" back in 1959 when the creature got it's name from the incident in N. California. I researched everything I could find on the subject of hominid creatures world-wide. Then I and a friend went into the field in the Cascade Mtns of Washington State.
    Over the course of several years, we recorded some vocalizations (mixed with coyotes howling and dogs barking), had pine cones and rocks thrown at us, exchanged wood knocks with 'something', and found various sized foot prints in some not-so-remote places where sightings were reported.
    I've been 'on the track' all this time. Do I believe something is out there that fits the description given of the creatures? You bet I do. Have I ever met one face to face? Nope.
    But let me also point out that I've spent over 60 years in the forests of the PNW, seen signs of their habitation, feeding grounds and burrows, but in all those years I have only seen ONE live sewellel (mountain beaver)! ONE!
    I read everything available about Standing's approach toward the creatures, and every one of his observations match what I've learned over the years...with the exception of the photos/videos. If, in fact, Standings images are of live creatures, then (in my experience) it is no wonder there are so many "experts" who denounce him. If his findings are valid, that would mean these other guys didn't win the Brass Ring in this race for proof.
    What we know about the creatures you could put in a thimble and it would rattle like a BB in a boxcar! Besides the explanation for the different appearances in those still photos (old female/juvenile), there is the question of migration. Those pictures were allegedly taken in Alberta, Canada, 100 miles from the Washington border. Cougars tagged in Montana have found their way into Kansas. Grizzlies have a routine 50 mile territorial range. With a limited population base, there is nothing to say that the creatures don't "immigrate" into other groups.
    While Photo B looks like it could be a reject from Face Off, it could also show an elderly creature who has lived a hard life exposed to the elements. If the creatures are genetically similar to humans, the lack of facial hair on a female is no surprise.
    BTW, I reject the Gigantopithecus theory.. By all assessment, G. was a huge dumb ape. The creatures are anything but bumbling forest apes. I think it's that connection we have with them that scares most people into disbelief.
    FWIW...YMMV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't have said it better! So I will not add anything.

      Delete
  35. Trail cameras are used the world over to capture video and still images of elusive species - from jaguars and gorillas to the Javan rhino - just like urban surveillance cameras are used to record actions of people who often do not want to be seen. If Standing had actually found a group of bigfoot hominids living on a particular mountain, as he says, and he wanted the world to know about it, he'd simply set up a network of motion-sensing cameras rigged for both day and night. Sooner or later he'd have convincing images. By contrast, the meager videos and images he promotes as evidence are a charade and reveal his game.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Here's the thing: if I went out and video taped in hi def perfect footage of a Sasquatch moving around in broad daylight with clear close ups, you know what? It would be pronounced a fake on the spot. People would say it's too perfect. So Todd Standing is in a catch 22 situation: for the past thirty years people have been complaining about why there is no sharp footage of this alleged creature. Mr Standing has what appears to be something unknown on camera and it's immediately written off. To my mind, the footage of the brown creature looks pretty impressive to the fact that its seems like a human/ape hybrid. And let's be real: even if Todd Standing is charging money to view the footage in a documentary, hands up who wouldn't do the same too if in his position? Besides somehow I don't think he's going to be become a multimillionaire from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you blind ?
      Simply scroll to the top of the page, look at Todd's photo for a few moments, then scroll down to Image A. Set aside your hopes and dreams of the existence of Bigfoot, and be objective while viewing the image. Look at the facial features and dimensions of this photo. Measure the distance between the eyes, the prominence of the brow line, the shape of the nose, the size of the mouth and lips, etc...
      Sorry to rain on your parade, but it doesn't take any scientific methodology to clearly see that this image was created by someone that has he capacity to use photo editing software. Quite frankly, they did a pretty good job!
      But, just be honest with yourself (this goes for all your other wishful thinkers out there as well!), this is not any creature other than Todd himself.
      It would be fantastic if someone somewhere finally proved the existence of another sub human species, BUT UNTIL IT IS FOUND DEAD OR ALIVE .... People like Mr Standing will take every opportunity to fool ignorant people into believing AND PROFIT FROM IT!!
      Get it???

      Delete
    2. Exactly what I thought anonymous.

      Delete
  37. The exif data from his own camera plants this as a hoax, he reversed the camera print for the two differing looking BF's with the same branches/twigs reversed. Guy is a known master manipulator and hoaxer. Check out the fine work done by Sweaty Yeti, Pragmatic Theorist and Squatchdetective on the three or so active threads on this matter on the Bigfoot Forums www.bigfootforums.com

    ReplyDelete
  38. The extent of my expertise on this subject is novice at best. I (like many on this thread I suspect) have a passing interest in the subject, and would act to protect these creatures should they be definitively proven real. For the time being, I have at my disposal what amounts to a ton of anecdotal evidence, visuals and study results of some plaster casts that are very interesting, a few reports on hair samples that are equally interesting, and a couple of DNA studies which confirm that whatever they came from are not in the register of known DNA samples. That is very interesting indeed. These photos fall into the anecdotal catagory. Could they be real? Sure. Could they be fake? Absolutely.

    In this case, I had a very interesting sensation as I watched the Survivorman sequence showing the near-motionless, purported Bigfoot behind a rock and a tree. I felt that I was looking at something that was not quite human, but very closely related. I immediately wondered if it was dangerous, and felt my body begin to back away from the TV. That was not only a very curious sensation - it was totally unexpected. I thought of a few reports in which I read that hunters could not shoot because it seemed so human. Hikers that did not know whether to run or not because they knew they were being intelligently assessed. I wondered if my sensations were what they felt. I have certainly never experienced these sensations looking at pictures or videos of Bigfoot in the past.

    So if this is a forgery, then it is exceptional in my humble opinion and perhaps Lucasfilms has an opening for Mr. Standing. But I lean towards real, as I give benefit of doubt. Being one who is open-minded, I am not concerned about having the wool pulled over on me in this case. If I did, then I'd be more concerned with what others think of my ability to judge in a way reminiscent of childhood when many of us were concerned with being "cool" and not being gullible. That would cloud my judgement. Further, I doubt that most (if any) on this thread are truly qualified to judge anatomical variances via photographic evidence, animatronic construct, or extent of software based image manipulation.

    When I look past the almost meticulously groomed hair of subject "A", and the startlingly human features of subject "B", I am left with two photos upon which I can either judge to be fake or real, or abstain. I had never heard of Todd Standing before Survivorman (novice on the subject as stated), and I will do a little research to try and get a feel for the quality of his character. I am absolutely certain that the Matt Moneymakers of the world will proclaim (quite vociferously) that this man is a liar and a fraud. These I will ignore. Having spent some time working with the man, I hope to find out what Les Stroud's conclusions are. I am also curious to know the opinions of any scientists and serious Bigfoot field researchers are concerning Mr. Standing. Preferably those who have worked with the man. If anyone has anything they can share in this pursuit, I'd appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The DNA samples should be thrown out, C'mon, if scientists can fool the world into believing co2 is warming the globe they can surely distort the very complex, and minuscule anomalies within the DNA sample to conclude (as if they should need a conclusion for DNA) its "unknown".
      Its called agenda-driven-science. People have become quite good at it.

      Delete
    2. "if scientists can fool the world into believing co2 is warming the globe"

      Are you implying that CO2 is not warming the planet, i.e. a greenhouse gas? Please do some research before making such absurd comments. You can argue that man-made CO2 isn't making the problem worse, which is a stupid argument, but you cannot say with any credibility that CO2 is not warming the planet. My god, is there no basis for scientific conclusions?

      Delete
  39. Why would anyone go out into the bush without a gun? Stupid

    ReplyDelete
  40. Can anyone here spell or use proper grammar and punctuation? This is why it's so hard to get credentialed scientists to entertain the idea of a North American ape - too many idiots promoting their existence. Additionally, anyone who has researched Bigfoot for any length of time will quickly realize that he is a fraud and probably mentally ill. If a man had such frequent and up-close encounters with such a creature, wouldn't you grab someone from CNN or Nat Geo and bring them along to finally settle this once and for all? Survivor Man is just another Blair Witch style piece of crap "reality" show. American television is getting dumber all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Money is the ONLY reason people need to explain why Stroud worked with Todd. Somebody paid [todd] $$$ to put Todd's bigfoot video on Strouds' show. Todd will certainly make bigger bucks as a bigfoot guide now that he's reached a national mainstream audience. He likely gave up his video rights for that honor.
    Its all about money, and Stroud was obviously playing dumb while out there. Several of those tree structures he was examining were obviously old "huts" used by the centuries of trappers who worked the area, including native Americans. The trapping lane is a wide road, they weren't out in the middle of nowhere if the area can be so easily accessed (via ATV).
    Not to mention Stroud did not do all he could to capture this, particularly the fact he did not use a gaming camera for the apples. My guess is the show was so boring and void of substance they lied about the apples. A simple lie can earn big bucks for Stroud and the network.
    Its all about money people, everyone wants it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No kidding, Why did they not put up game cameras in the area within which they placed the apples? That is an inexcusable failure of due diligence. The resulting absence of apples is meaningless, other than creating 'snake oil' TV shows.

      Delete
    2. To Les Stroud and Jeff Meldrum: Why would you associate yourself with this Todd Standing character? It is ridiculous to the point of absurdity, and is proof positive that people will sell their reputation, if no their soul, for money. Congratulations! There is no standard for honesty or honor anymore.

      Delete
  42. What's really sad about this is after watching 4 (or is it 5 now) seasons of 'Finding Bigfoot', I am open enough to believe (based on footprints, sounds, eyewitness testimony, etc.) that it is POSSIBLE that an ape-like creature in all of its elusiveness exists. And yet....
    This 'so called' evidence by Todd Standing is a load of crap. Image A might do well on an episode of SyFy's Faceoff. But Image B...OMG, that thing looks lifeless! Just a really bad bad puppet with button eyes, just lifeless.
    Todd is not doing himself any favors by putting forth this fake footage. Just messes up the whole idea that Sasquatch's are possible.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Regarding Mr. Standing's 'evidence' and his comments regarding the 'tree branch editing' by someone else. Of course random people can modify images on their own and after the fact. That's the problem nowadays, you can't trust what you see in pictures and videos because they can be so convincingly (or not) altered with software.

    But if the origin of the material -- the images and videos Mr. Standing posted himself -- reveal modifications such as image reversals (which seems obvious) or undeclared 'enhancements', then it's simply not honest or genuine.

    To me, Standing's Bigfoot photos do indeed look like a muppet/puppet/fake, particularly the so-called young one'. That doesn't mean the sasquatch creature does not exist. Someone might fake/hoax a Great White Shark, but that doesn't mean the creature does not exist.

    And why the extreme difference in appearance between Bigfoot 'A', which looks much like the P/G film, and Bigfoot 'B', which looks like an Ewok from Star Wars? I realized that humans have greatly varying appearances, but these two images seem like different creatures.

    And why, in some of the photos, is the creature just staring off into space, not staring right at the person holding the camera? If these creatures actually exist, they must be extremely effective at avoiding detection, which means they are extremely aware of the presence of man. So, how is it that a man is filming one, but it's not looking at him, it's just staring off into space?

    What I find most curious is that nearly 50 years after the Patterson/Gimlin film, there are no pictures or videos that are more convincing. Prior to P/G, few people had any awareness of a creature like Bigfoot. It stands to reason that after the P/G film tens of thousands more people had Bigfoot on their mind, and so were 'on the lookout' when venturing into the wilderness, while working, camping, hiking, etc.

    And, nowadays, everyone has a camera in their pocket, whether it's only a cell phone, or a digital camera with video capability, or an actual video recorder. Back in the the late 60's when the P/G film was shot, few people walked around with a camera.

    So there are tens of millions more people walking around with cameras in their pocket today compared to the late 60's, but no one has more credible evidence.than the P/G film. How can that be?How is it that the very first time 'Bigfoot' is caught on film -- the P/G film, if it's not a hoax -- just so happens to be the best piece of evidence of the creature's existence ever since. No one has produced better evidence in nearly 50 years, despite millions more people being 'aware' of the idea of Bigfoot, and many millions more people having a camera on them at all times, and many hundreds, if not thousands, of people actively searching for BF.

    We should have better evidence. What does it mean that we do not?

    -MM, Bellevue, WA

    ReplyDelete
  44. Todd is pretty smart if nothing else. Smart people do not make glaring mistakes like is alleged in this article. The fact that the two faces are very very different makes it more believable, not less. A 10 year old hoaxer would know better than using such different photos of the same species. I think B is a young female and A is a mature male. Go Todd Go!!

    ReplyDelete
  45. It's clearly cgi...

    ReplyDelete
  46. I think its amazing how many people act like if you see Ohio grassman or something you're sapose to try to get an interview, or ask it to wait on you to get a camera or ask for an autograph.Maybe take him to Olan mills for a photo shoot.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I believe there could be a Bigfoot but I have absolutely no faith in Todd Standing. Everything about him screams hoaxer. He's most likely hoaxing to further any funding he may be getting but I also think he is a bit crazy and truly believes that the puppet heads shown are believable. It seems the Bigfoot community is filled with two camps, those who are just nuts or makes a showing for publicity (Todd Standing, Matt Moneymaker) and those who try to actually get to the heart of the phenomenon (Jeff Meldrum). Sadly, people like Jeff Meldrum have been aligning themselves with these snake oil salesmen and in my eyes are dragging their reputations down into the mud with them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. one thing that todd says that got me thinking he may not be a complete hoaxer is that 'once youve seen one you dont doubt'. now i havent seen a sasquatch but i HAVE seen UFO...and that was exactly the words i would use to verify the existence to someone who hasnt seen one for themselves. i have absolutely no doubt whatsoever there are UFO's,and im pretty dam sure there are sasquatches but until i see one for myself....

    ReplyDelete
  49. I gotta say I'm on the fence with regards to Standing, I like many that have had encounters, want to say "finally !, there they are", but I have to weigh in the $$$ factor as well. His stance on, prove to protect, I like, and support, but........again I'm on the fence with him. A little food for thought, compromised by human dna samples, abduction stories old and new, missing 411, "looked more human than ape", etc,,,,now add a national enquirer headline, "I had bigfoots baby", and you get a possible explanation to the facial/hair differences. There is no such thing as a "bigfoot/sasquatch expert",( expert, makes me giggle every time I hear it ), I would call Jane Goodall an "expert" on chimpanzees, but anyone claiming to be an expert on Sasquatch is simply delusional. Being 6'3" myself, I'm more afraid of running into a redneck researcher (intent on kill one for evidence ), than a sasquatch. I know they are out there, and proof will come, kinda funny how eyewitness testimony can put a person in the electric chair, but eyewitness to sasquatch, and you're off to a shrink. If Standing or anyone can 100% prove existance, than my hat is off to them, and only then can an"expert" ( giggle, giggle) learn to become an expert.....

    ReplyDelete